Sorry for some delay to the continuation of this series. I have been busy blogging on other matters, both here and at Better Bibles Blog.

As I write part 6 of this review of Adrian Warnock’s book Raised with Christ, which I started here – part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, I note Adrian’s report that the book has now been launched in the UK, although not all Christian bookshops yet have it in stock.

In chapter 11 of the book Adrian writes that in response to the resurrection we Christians should let ourselves be transformed to live holy lives, not to earn salvation but in response to it.

By gazing on the resurrected Jesus we will be transformed and will find that Jesus himself is at work within us, changing our appetites and desires. (p.148)

Our biggest problem is that we do not see Jesus as he is. (p.149)

Adrian argues that how we should see him is not still as the one suffering on the cross but as the resurrected one. He continues by looking at the two picture of the risen Christ in Revelation chapters 1 and 19. As we see him as he is, the appropriate reaction is “reverence, awe and wonder” (p.156), but not terror, because we belong to him.

In chapter 12 Adrian moves on from the individual to the corporate, and discusses revival, times when “the church seems to be resurrected from a state of near-deadness” (p.160). He writes that “Today we do not speak much about revival” (p.160). That may be true in his circles, but in some of the circles I move in there is never-ending talk about revivals – history of past ones, rumours of present ones, and hopes of future ones. So it is interesting to see Adrian’s take on this matter. For him

Revival is nothing more than a wide-scale outworking of Jesus’ resurrection power. … “a powerful intensification by Jesus of the Holy Spirit’s normal activity.” … the Spirit of revival is always available to us. Thus, when a revival comes, we should recognize it as a greater manifestation of normal Christianity. (p.161, quoting Stuart Piggin with Adrian’s emphasis)

If we experience personal revival and it begins to spread, then, history suggests, church growth will result. (p.162)

In other words, revival is not something exceptional which we should just long for, but is what should come about if we as Christians are individually revived and live in the light of that. Adrian illustrates his point from stories of revival in Acts and in church history. He also points out that

Today, from a global perspective, we are seeing the largest revival the world has ever seen. (p.166)

He remembers how as a teenager he was involved in a mini-revival which I was also on the edge of, and which I talked about in one of my first posts here. He avoids commenting on controversial recent “revivals” in North America, with effects around the world, such as the Toronto Blessing and the Lakeland outpouring. But he does agree with the expectation of many of those who talk about revival today:

There is biblical warrant to optimistically expect a global end time revival before Jesus returns. (p.167)

This leads Adrian into chapter 13, “Reviving Prayer”, which he calls “potentially the most important chapter in this whole book.” (p.169) He recognises how revival always follows special seasons of prayer – but Christians are expected to do God’s work as well as pray.

However, I was a little concerned at Adrian’s suggestion that some particular kind of prayer will produce revival, and that the prayers of Elijah, as commended in James 5:16-18, are the best model for that. Certainly there is a lot to be learned from what Adrian has to say about Elijah at prayer, but I’m not sure why he links this to revival. Also he fails to recognise that 1 Kings 17:1 is a record that Elijah “prayed fervently that it might not rain”, that this kind of declaration in God’s name is a part of prayer. Perhaps, applying to revival what I concluded here, if our prayers were a little less “Please, God, send revival, if it is your will” and a bit more “As the Lord lives there will be revival” (at least if we have heard from God that this is his intention), we might see a bit more of the revival.

In chapter 14, “God’s Reviving Word”, Adrian finishes the part of his book about revival with a look at how God speaks today, primarily through preaching and by speaking personally through his written word. Adrian’s emphasis on how God’s word is alive is a welcome contrast to the picture which sometimes comes out of the Reformed camp, of the Bible as a collection of lifeless propositional truths to be analysed and synthesised into a sound theology. Adrian illustrates his understanding with a selection of verses from Psalm 119. He concludes with:

We must learn to feast on God’s Word and to drink in his presence through prayer. If we want to be connected to the power made available to us through Jesus’ resurrection, God’s Word and prayer are the most effective tools we can use to access that power. (p.194)

Continued in part 7.

People are searching my blog for news about televangelist Benny Hinn’s divorce. I wrote about Benny before, here, but with no mention of divorce. But if people are looking here for news, I will give them some, second hand …

The BBC and the British newspapers have not yet found this worthy of reporting, so I am reliant on the US newspapers, via Google News and also through a link I found from a tweet by Rich Tatum (seen through Facebook) to the story as reported by the LA Times blog.

The Washington Post has more details than the LA Times and some response from Benny’s camp, so I will quote part of its report:

The wife of televangelist Benny Hinn has filed for divorce from the high-profile pastor, whose reputation as an advocate of prosperity gospel has attracted millions of followers and criticism from lawmakers and watchdog groups over his lavish lifestyle.

Suzanne Hinn filed the papers in Orange County Superior Court on Feb. 1, citing irreconcilable differences, after more than 30 years of marriage. The papers note the two separated on Jan. 26 and that Hinn has been living in Dana Point, a wealthy coastal community in southern Orange County.

“Pastor Benny Hinn and his immediate family were shocked and saddened to learn of this news without any previous notice,” Benny Hinn Ministries said Thursday in a statement. “Although Pastor Hinn has faithfully endeavored to bring healing to their relationship, those efforts failed and were met with the petition for divorce that was filed without notice.”

This is of course very sad, and reminiscent of the high profile divorce of Todd Bentley a couple of years ago. In this case there is no suggestion that any other woman, or man, was involved. Very likely the main underlying issue is that the high pressure work of a modern American evangelist is incompatible with a normal family life.

I remember hearing a folk tale from Central Asia, about a well known character called Molla Nasraddin, which went something like this:

One day Molla Nasraddin’s neighbour knocked on his door. “Molla, may I borrow your donkey”, he asked. “I’m sorry, but no”, replied Molla, “my donkey isn’t here.” Just then they both heard a loud “Hee-haw, hee-haw” from Molla’s back yard. “Shame on you, Molla!”, said the neighbour, “You lied to me!” “Shame on you, neighbour”, retorted Molla, “for believing the words of my donkey and not my words!”

I was reminded of this story by a post by David Matthias at The Road to “Elder” Ado, Dudley Outpouring on the BBC, and by the subsequent discussion in the comments. I had already seen this BBC programme (which has probably now disappeared from iPlayer) as my attention had been drawn to it by a comment here at Gentle Wisdom, to which I replied twice.

The issue I take with David’s post, and all the more with the comments on it by Eutychus, is the way that they seem to put more store by the words of the sceptical BBC presenter than by those of the respected Christian leader Trevor Baker. David makes it clear that he believes Trevor’s claims; Eutychus seems to imply the opposite, as I explained in the following comment which I repeat in full here because it has not yet been approved:

Eutychus, sorry if I misrepresented you. I accept that you didn’t exactly suggest that anyone was lying.

But you did criticise the fact that “people automatically assume the reliability of what others tell them”, which implies that you expect people to be sceptical of what others say. That is not a specific accusation of lying, but it does imply that you think that some Christians do lie about such things. The context in which you write suggests that you have Trevor Baker in mind.

Also you DID summarise your position on healing: “it’s become my casual opinion that healing, along with other spiritual gifts, genuinely occurs in christian contexts …”

We can agree on this last point (although not on the continuation of your sentence). So suppose that you, or I, do at some stage witness a notably miraculous healing. We are sure enough of it that we want to tell others of it, to glorify God and bring them to seek him. But we do not have medically verified proof of the healing, or perhaps we do have it but not permission to make it public. Should we keep quiet? If so, why? Only in an attempt to placate scoffers?

So, do we believe the words of a donkey, or of an unbelieving television presenter whose understanding of Christian healing ministry seems about as profound as a donkey’s? After all, as Jesus recognised (Luke 16:31), people like her will not be convinced by any amount of evidence, even if someone rises from the dead in front of their eyes. Or do we believe the words of our Christian brothers and sisters, unless we have good evidence on which to doubt them?

Yes, God can speak through the words of a donkey. He did once, to Balaam, and thereby, in the apostle Peter’s words, “restrained the prophet’s madness” (2 Peter 2:16 TNIV, cf. Numbers 22:28-30). So maybe he will indeed speak to us even through the words of sceptics.

But Peter went on to write that “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires” (2 Peter 3:3 TNIV). The apostle warns his readers not to listen to their scoffing, and writes that he is writing to them

to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. ² I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Saviour through your apostles.

2 Peter 3:1-2 (TNIV)

The words we should ordinarily listen to are not those of the scoffers, but of the biblical authors and of Jesus himself.

Doug Chaplin seems to rejoice that, as reported by Ruth Gledhill, the preacher Benny Hinn was not able to enter Britain yesterday, because of the technicality that he did not have the required letter of invitation. In the process Doug writes that

you can hardly call the selling of asking of donations in return for miracles a religious activity.

Well, in that case I trust that Doug is immediately going to stop asking for donations, by passing round a collection plate or whatever, at any services of the Eucharist. After all, at least according to his “Catholic” doctrine, the central point of the Eucharist is the “miracle” of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ. Either that or he should stop claiming to be a minister of religion leading a “religious activity”.

Here is the comment I made on Doug’s post:

Does your church pass round a collection bag or in other ways solicit donations at religious gatherings? Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye before complaining about others who do just the same.

Maybe this comment is not quite “Gentle Wisdom”, but I hope Doug knows me well enough to take the word “Hypocrite” as friendly banter.

However, my point is a serious one. What is the real difference between Doug, a stipendiary (I assume) priest of the Church of England, living on money from worshippers and Benny Hinn doing the same? Is the difference just the large amount of such money received by Benny (short for Benedictus, “blessed”)? Are the complaints fuelled by a hint of jealousy about his private jet? Or is the real issue that Anglo-Catholics like Doug and Ruth do not believe that the blessed Benny’s message and miracle ministry are genuinely Christian? In that case they should say so straight out and not pretend that this is a matter of asking for money.

Personally I don’t like Benny Hinn’s style. I also have serious issues with how both he and very often the Church of England seem more interested in taking people’s money than anything else. And although I do believe his ministry is genuinely Christian, although like any preacher’s not perfect, I would defend his right to preach it wherever he wants to. But of course that does not make him immune to border formalities.

I would say just the same about another Benedictus clothed in white expected to visit the UK next year. I hope someone remembers to give the Pope the right letter of invitation.

Some good advice on how to avoid burnout, for Christian ministers everywhere when adjusted for their circumstances, indeed also for me – from someone who has been there and paid the price for it:

I can actually think of both moments, right, where I’ve burned out, or came close to burning out. I can think I was disconnected, in the sense of, you love God, you pray, your read your Bible, but I have a message tonight, I need to meet with Jesus so I have something for the people. And it gets away from “I just love you, Lord, here I am, like Mary sitting at your feet” which has been my message: the secret place, soaking, marinating. I mean… But sometimes the very message that you preach is the very thing God’s saying to you.

And then you get so caught up in the work of revival. I remember in Lakeland that the first six weeks of Lakeland I would set aside two to four hours before I would do anything else to wait on the Lord, or in the afternoons. And then you get so busy with all the appointments and media and all the work of revival. Pretty soon after the sixth week, you know, it dwindles down to “I’ve got a few moments here. God, what are we doing tonight?” And God still moved in power, God still moved in power. And you still love the Lord but you lose the preciousness of “I’m just here because I love you, and there is no agenda”.

And the very thing you are saying, you know, is “I may be going. Give me the twelve steps. Give me a goal. Give me…” But you’re right, God is saying to me “It’s about the rest, it’s about getting back to…” I built our ministry on that relationship. Of course I didn’t know there would be ministry, it was just I loved the Lord and out of that love for the Lord everything flowed. And I can think of both situations, you know, I just got disconnected from the Lord.

Todd Bentley, speaking on the latest video at Rick Joyner’s page of videos about Todd’s restoration, dated 27th March and entitled “Entering Rest” (starting at 03:57).

Later in the ten minute (starting at 9:11) Todd says:

I was so devoted to the work of the ministry. Ministry is not evil, but I got so caught up in the love of the work. That’s really what led, after ten years that’s what led to… there was no relationship left with Shonnah, with my first wife, there was none. And to me that was the biggest issue, was  the ministry became the mistress. And I never can have that happen again. I mean, that doesn’t mean I can’t have ministry and do ministry, but it has to be done different.

Good advice! May every minister of the gospel take it to heart.

In a comment in response to my question “Why does Todd Bentley inspire such hatred?”, Tim Chesterton has asked

why Todd Bentley inspires so much interest – especially in you.

Along the same lines, in a private comment I received by e-mail a suggestion was made that I am being neither gentle nor wise in focusing so much on Todd.

The second commenter certainly has a good point: it is probably not helping Todd’s restoration to discuss the matter too much or to treat him as a celebrity. And in answer to Tim I wrote:

Tim, I don’t blame you, if you are not interested in Todd. But a lot of people are, as I can tell from my statistics. And many of them are writing a lot of nonsense about him. By contrast, most of my other posts, even on controversial subjects, attract few readers or commenters. I don’t blog to get attention, but I don’t want to bore people by writing posts which no one reads.

I stand by that, but I must also admit that this is only part of the story. Another aspect is that recently I have not been inspired to blog much about anything else.

But there is more than that to it. Some people may think of the Lakeland revival as something inconsequential, last summer’s fad which can and should be forgotten quickly in a new year with its new challenges. But to me Lakeland, and Todd Bentley’s part in it, was something of real significance for God’s purposes for the world, or at least for the western part of it.

So, with apologies to Tim and the other commenter, I will write one more post about Todd, bringing out some lessons for the church from this affair. I won’t promise to write no more about Todd after that, but I will try to keep it to a minimum.

I believe that at Lakeland God was testing his church, at least in the West, to see if it is ready for the next step in his purposes. Here are some things that he wanted to find out:

• Is the church forgiving, of sins committed by people before they become believers?
• Is the church accepting, of people who don’t wear the expected clothes, etc?
• Is the church characterised by grace, or does it legalistically apply Old Testament rules out of context for example about tattoos?
• Is the church listening to everyone, or only to those of a certain background and age?
• Is the church teachable, or does it only accept teaching from those who confirm the doctrinal prejudices it already holds?
• Is the church non-judgmental, or does it reject people quickly because of unsubstantiated allegations against them?
• And perhaps most importantly, is the church open to the work of God the Holy Spirit, or is it quick to claim that certain manifestations and ministry styles cannot be from him?

Of course God knew what his church was like. But did the church? Did it know that on each of these issues, when brought to its attention in the person and ministry of Todd Bentley, it would to a large extent be found wanting? Yet it was found wanting: Todd’s childhood sins, unconventional clothing, tattoos and youth (but he is as old as Jesus ever was on earth) were presented as disqualifying him from ministry; his teaching was rejected as novel without being given a proper hearing; his recent sins have been exaggerated and considered unforgivable; and his ministry style has been lampooned and rejected as not genuinely from God.

In the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11), although she was actually guilty, in response to Jesus’ words the scribes and the Pharisees dropped their stones of accusation against her. In the case of Todd Bentley, although there is in fact no evidence of physical adultery but only an admission of an “inappropriate relationship” and a divorce action, Todd’s accusers in the church are not prepared to listen to the one they call “Lord” and drop their accusations. I think the scribes and Pharisees get the better of this comparison.

God grieves over the state of the world, lost in sin and shame. He is looking for a church, a people, who he can use to reach it with the message of the gospel. But mostly he finds professing Christians who are self-righteous, legalistic and unwilling to accept anything or anyone not meeting their own expectations. He longs to revive his church and use it to bring in multitudes of the lost. But he cannot do so while it is led by such people, people who would not accept the lost if they did come in. This is a time for the church to repent, before God brings his judgment on it, discarding the old wineskins and creating new ones to contain his new people.

From the latest presentation on my church‘s electronic noticeboard (a plasma screen inside the foyer but visible from the street), which we had long before digital picture frames became the latest in gadget:

If you don’t understand the context here, or recognise the bus in the top right insert, see this post by David Keen, and his first and second roundups of reaction.

Personally I think the “Agnostibus” campaign is great because, just like the Alpha campaign with its questions like “Is this it?” and “What am I doing here?”, it makes people think. But I doubt if it will stop anyone worrying.

The Agnostibuses are not only in London; I saw some a few days ago in Dawkins’ home town of Oxford. But there are none in my home town of Chelmsford, only buses asking those Alpha questions.

UPDATE 2nd February: This slogan can now be seen on the side of a real bus, courtesy of this site:

Tominthebox News Network announces in its usual satirical style that Todd Bentley is returning to revival ministry, but using a “Probationary Podium” to keep his feet on the ground!

One thing in this report does seem to be true: the Lakeland Outpouring has officially ended, just over six months after it started in April. Ignited Church in Lakeland kept the nightly meetings going in their own building even after Todd left in August. But their website now says:

Welcome to the Ignited Church, the epicenter of the Lakeland Outpouring. It began April 2, 2008, and continued through October 12, 2008.

In many of the recent discussions of Todd Bentley and the Lakeland outpouring there has been criticism of the role that God TV played in this. For example, Rupert Ward has written the following:

Lakeland, on the other hand, was virtually instantaneous, screened live by God TV and on the internet.  In my opinion, God TV have a lot to answer for, as they effectively became the ones who proclaimed this from the rooftops: this is God – jump in.  It didn’t allow time for people, or for questions, or for process.  They were forcing people to make a choice: are you for this or not?

I can’t imagine the pressures that suddenly hit Todd Bentley and his Fresh Fire ministry.  In the matter of a few days, he was catapulted from a somewhat known itinerant preacher to global superstar in the Christian world. …

In the end, the failing of Todd to live faithfully to his wife, has had a greater impact on the body of Christ due to the prominence he had ‘achieved’ over the last few months.  If Lakeland hadn’t happened, I doubt it would have registered a hit on Christian radar.

For that, I think that GodTV do have real responsibility.  Not for Todd choices.  But for the pressure that he was put under.  For not allowing Lakeland to grow slowly or fizzle out.  For promoting something, and then not taking responsibility for the leadership they brought to the worldwide body of Christ.

To an extent I agree with Rupert. The decision of God TV to broadcast the Lakeland meetings certainly put Todd under massive pressure. This may well have contributed to the breakdown of his marriage. It certainly increased public awareness of his moral lapse. But does this in itself make God TV to blame?

Today I have received by e-mail, also available online and featured on their UK home page, a statement from Rory and Wendy Alec, the founders of God TV, defending their decision to broadcast from Lakeland. Here are some extracts from what they write:

we believe that the Lord instructed us to broadcast the Outpouring services at Lakeland with Todd Bentley.

It was not a mistake.
It was not by mistake.
We believe it was a clear instruction from the Lord.

Over the past twelve years, but especially since our launch in America, we have in obedience to the Lord searched through the earth for those events and anointings that the Lord has laid on our hearts – to amplify their message and anointing to the Body of Christ in this crucial endtime hour that we live in.

The Lakeland Outpouring with Todd Bentley was one of those events. We received over 45 000 e-mails many, many of these heart rending, powerful testimonies from viewers across the earth of their bodies or their families bodies healed, their lives transformed and their hearts revived.

None of us have ever seen such significant fruit in all the years of broadcast.

Far more profound than that were the desperate cries for help. I (Wendy), would go through the live inbox and see the desperate cries from mothers, wives, sons and daughters, so many with TERMINALLY ILL husbands, wives, children, sometimes babies in arms – sensing HOPE in their situation that for so long had been without hope.

Just reading these prayer requests would bring one to tears –

We are often so cloistered from the agony of peoples day by day real life agonies – and their agonies were written there. …

The enemy had heard of the great honoring of the Lamb and was determined to destroy it – BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE AND AT ANY COST.

And the cost was Todd Bentley.

Was it because Todd was vulnerable and certain areas of his life were not surrendered wholly – Yes – like so many of us – in all probability.

Was it because the character of Christ was not yet formed in him in the equivalent measure to his gifting? Yes – like so many of us – in all probability.

Could it be the case that there by the grace of God go YOU AND I… Yes – In all probability. …

On the June 23rd, Todd actually spoke openly and with great vulnerability of his and Shonnah’s previous marriage challenges and how they had faced those challenges and the Lord had begun His work. He did not try to hide their struggle but shared their ongoing journey.

As Rick Joyner so wisely put it -
“In marriage, I have learned there are those who admit they have been through times when they wondered if their marriage would make it, and then there are liars. …” …

The Lord also shared with us that someone can be deceived in an AREA of sin but it does not necessarily mean that in every area of his or her life or ministry, they were walking in deception as some critics of the revival may lean to believe.

And who is to judge that the Lord does not hold the violent unleashing of criticism and faultfinding and tearing down and divisiveness of the heresy hunters, as severe a sin as separation in a marriage? …

So beloved friend –

Do we at GOD TV refute the Outpouring? NO.

We are presently planning to broadcast other offshoots of Lakeland in both the United Kingdom and America, including revival meetings in Dudley, England. …

Remember: this was never about Todd Bentley. It was always about the Holy Spirit and the fact that God loved you and I. It was GOD who touched our lives. …

Remember also, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Let’s turn our eyes toward Him and away from our trust in man.

He who sent His only begotten Son.

The Great Father of Compassions.

To Him alone we bow.

Personally we believe that the best is yet to come.

For our King and His Kingdom

Rory and Wendy Alec

Rory and Wendy don’t admit to making any mistakes in their coverage. I regret that because I suspect that they did. For example, it seems likely, although I can’t prove it, that Todd returned to Lakeland sooner than expected after his break in July because of pressure from God TV, who had doubtless seen their Lakeland viewing figures plummet in his absence. In fact the blame for that should be mainly with the viewers who were more interested in watching a man than in experiencing God at work. But if God TV did put pressure on Todd they were wrong to do so. I hope that they are at least privately recognising that not everything is perfect in their world and doing something to put it right.

Nevertheless I accept that God TV is a genuine Christian ministry whose leaders are truly wanting to see God glotified, and who in this case did what they really believed God was calling them to do. It is all too easy to say that they were wrong, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But even with that hindsight we must realise that the damage caused by the way this ended is probably far less than the benefit gained by millions of viewers worldwide who saw God in action in Lakeland, many of whom were touched in their own bodies. Anyway, it is before God and their own accountability partners that Rory and Wendy should be giving account, and so it is not for me or any other outsiders to judge them.

As for the wider role of Christian TV, I understand Rupert’s concerns, but for the reasons I gave in my first comment on his post I don’t think it should be stopped. My conclusion there can also serve to conclude this post:

For all my ambivalence about God TV I do at least believe that Rory and Wendy Alec’s hearts are in the right place, not looking for personal gain or spreading false teaching but genuinely (to quote from their website) “taking the message of the Gospel and the heart of God to the nations of the world”. I hope they are learning lessons from Lakeland.

FURTHER NOTE 7th January 2009: Robert Ricciardelli has denied (in comment 84 here) making comments about Todd Bentley during September 2008. It seems clear that at least some comments made in his name are in fact by an imposter. Because of this I am deleting the comments on this post in his name, and my responses to them. I have also deleted my post “Thoughts on Todd Bentley, healing, and the dead being raised” (dated 20th September 2008) which was primarily a response to the comments on this post in Ricciardelli’s name, and on which several other comments were made in his name.

NOTE 1st January 2009 for those coming here from the link at this post: I wish to entirely dissociate myself from the comments made on this post by Robert Ricciardelli, in which he makes statements for which he refused to reveal his sources and so which cannot be confirmed. See my comments 105993 and 106387 below. See also my latest post about Todd.

There seems to be no real news about Todd Bentley in the last couple of weeks, although not surprisingly there are efforts to link him with the latest hot topic of discussion, Sarah Palin. But there is still plenty of largely negative discussion of Todd on various blogs and in comments on this one, and plenty of traffic coming to this blog from searches on his name – 64 hits yesterday just on “todd bentley”. So I assume some people are interested if I continue to post about him.

My previous post was an extended quotation from Derek Prince (1915-2003), one of the best known charismatic Bible teachers of the late 20th century. I’m not sure if it coincidental, but yesterday in a comment (see also this follow-up) Sheri (ForeverSet) pointed me to an online booklet Protection From Deception: Navigating Through The Minefield Of Signs And Wonders by the same Derek Prince, which she considers relevant to assessing Todd and the Lakeland outpouring. And indeed it is. I have commented twice in response, referring to the first two chapters of the booklet, and promised to comment also on the third and final chapter. But I have decided to bring these comments together as a post, starting with a revised version of the comments I have already made.

In chapter 1 of the booklet Prince, writing in 1996, is apparently referring to the Toronto Blessing, with guarded criticism and without naming it. I don’t really disagree with this chapter, although I think it focuses a bit too much on the negative. He calls what was behind the Toronto Blessing

a mixture of spirits, both the Holy Spirit and unholy spirits.

I expect he would have said something similar about Lakeland, if he was still alive.

Well, it is the nature of all human endeavours to be mixed like this, as nothing human is perfectly holy. But what do we do with such mixtures? Do we reject what the Holy Spirit is doing because there are also unholy spirits at work? No, because if we did the Holy Spirit would be unable to do anything in the world! Instead we have to keep what we do as pure as we can and trust God in prayer to minimise the damage caused by the unholy admixture. If this is not right, then of course God will withdraw his Holy Spirit from the work and it will become obviously entirely evil. I don’t think Lakeland ever got that far, but I suppose it was God’s way of purifying it, although not perfectly, to take Todd out of the way, so that what remains is much more pure.

Concerning chapter 2 of the booklet, I have strong objections to Prince’s apparent claim that it is only the MALE human who is the image of God, contradicting Genesis 1:27 which makes it clear that both males and females are his image. I am also not entirely happy with what he has to say about styles of music – doesn’t he realise that classical music, even Mozart, is also used to call up demons, and that many people sing old hymns with the attitude “Excite me. Thrill me. Satisfy me.”? But these points are irrelevant to this discussion.

But I am prepared to accept that at Lakeland there has been

soulishness: an undiscerned downward slide from a focus on God to a focus on self, from objective scriptural truth to subjective personal experience.

That is, it started well if not perfect and became less good, more man-centred. And God did something about it, removing Todd.

I can also accept Prince’s assessment of five branches of the charismatic movement (including one of which he himself was a leader) which went astray, and of the way that they did so. His insight into Branham is interesting, but note how he is clear that Branham genuinely operated in the Holy Spirit. I suspect he would think similarly of Todd Bentley: genuine powerful ministry but also serious flaws.

Concerning the “Latter Rain” movement, one of these five, Prince wrote:

one of Satan’s tactics is to discredit that which is good by its misuse.

50 years later, here in comments on this blog, people are still using the words “Latter Rain” as a tactic “to discredit that which is good” at Lakeland and elsewhere. Among these people are commenter here Julie Steadman, who wrote just yesterday:

I know because of Todd Bentleys alignment with Branham, Paul Cain who are all into false Latter Rain theology that there is something wrong

- in other words she simply presupposes that Latter Rain theology is entirely false and a touchstone of evil. Now I accept, as Prince does, that some of this theology is wrong, but not all of it – see my response to Julie. But by using “Latter Rain” as a pejorative term in this way these people are, I’m sorry to say, serving Satan. Julie is doing this unwittingly, I have good reason to believe. But I am not so sure about the motives of the people who operate “discernment” websites; some of these sites seem to be dedicated to undermining the work of the Holy Spirit through the charismatic movement, and are prepared to disseminate deliberate misinformation on the basis (which I have seen more or less explicitly stated) that the end justifies the means.

Concerning chapter 3, there is of course a need for all of us, including Todd and his critics, to humble ourselves, love truth, fear the Lord, and keep the cross central. But surely those who “did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10 as quoted by Prince) are not Christians at all? The ones of whom Paul writes “God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11) are those who “did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:12), not Spirit-filled Christians who “have an anointing from the Holy One, and … know the truth” (1 John 2:20, TNIV). I’m sorry to say that what Prince is doing here is putting into his Christian readers a fear, not of the Lord but an unhealthy fear, that anything they listen to may delude them “that they all may be condemned” (2 Thessalonians 2:12). This goes totally against the teaching of Paul that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”, that nothing in all creation “will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1,39, TNIV).

So let us indeed discern carefully what is “soulish” and what is spiritual about charismatic and other movements, manifestations and personalities. But we should not do this in fear that if we soil our hands with any taint of their false teaching we may receive “strong delusion” and lose our salvation. Instead we should recognise and affirm “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy” (Philippians 4:8) about such things or people, while being careful not to share in or endorse anything which is wrong. That way, as we Christians build one another up in love, the wrong or “soulish” things will be weakened and the true work of the Holy Spirit will be strengthened, to the glory of God.